Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
True but you are making an awful lot of assumptions here. If everybody is using flawed info then of course they will all come up with a similar flawed number. I guess what I am saying is not that different figure makers will be 30 points off but that there is certainly a margin of error that is associated with every number assigned because things are occuring in a vaccum. So when you start comparing numbers of a single race a year apart I think that a few points could fall within the range of error. Especially in the case of the Derby which is such an outlier race. If horses were running 95 beyers as opposed to 109 I could accept the premise that they make. But 104 versus 106 versus 101 versus 108 all seems to hardly be conclusive
|
It can be argued that Beyer has "boosted" the figures of several Derby winners over the last several years. If anything, they should probably be lower than they are.
I will say I think it has more to do with the methodology than the horses. In any case, trying to use figures as a historical measure is always going to have problems.